Pan-European sustainable forest management indicators for assessing Climate-Smart Forestry in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing demand for innovative forest management strategies to adapt to and mitigate climate change and benefit forest production, the so-called Climate-Smart Forestry, calls for a tool to monitor and evaluate their implementation and their effects on forest development over time. The pan-European set of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management is considered one of the most important tools for assessing many aspects of forest management and sustainability. This study offers an analytical approach to selecting a subset of indicators to support the implementation of Climate-Smart Forestry. Based on a literature review and the analytical hierarchical approach, 10 indicators were selected to assess, in particular, mitigation and adaptation. These indicators were used to assess the state of the Climate-Smart Forestry trend in Europe from 1990 to 2015 using data from the reports on the State of Europe’s Forests. Forest damage, tree species composition, and carbon stock were the most important indicators. Though the trend was overall positive with regard to adaptation and mitigation, its evaluation was partly hindered by the lack of data. We advocate for increased efforts to harmonize international reporting and for further integrating the goals of Climate-Smart Forestry into national- and European-level forest policy making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".